|
previous
| next | table
of contents
Transmitting
Values
A Guide to Fairer Journalism
by Keith Woods 1
Most journalists
willingly concede that objectivity is an honorable myth, achievable
only in an ideal world. If that is so, then our success at moving
along the continuum from subjective reporting toward that objective
ideal hinges on our ability to recognize and correct for the human
biases that pull us in the wrong direction. Here are places to look
for those biases.
The stories we choose
can tell our public something about what we value. Where we go, whom
we interview, what perspectives we represent, all convey a message
to the public.
When it works:
When the scope of coverage shows communities in their fullest complexity
- all classes, religions, races/ethnicities, men and women, gay
and straight, all political persuasions - then there is greater
chance that all groups will feel valued and will respect your organization.
When it doesn't
work: It produces reporting that largely ignores groups or disproportionately
shows them in a negative or stereotypical way. Religious fundamentalists
as extremists; gay men as AIDS victims; Hispanics and black people
as criminals.
How we refer to people
or incidents, from the opening of a story to its kicker, can speak
volumes to the public. Each adjective, phrase, or inflection, either
verbal or written, has the power to signal to a viewer, reader, or
listener that the reporter has a particular point of view.
When it works:
Language is precise, direct, strong. It is not overly dependent
upon sources and subjects. It is wary of single-word descriptors
- radical, hysterical, separatist - that are used as labels by one
person or group against another. It avoids hyperbole and euphemisms.
When it doesn't
work: Inference substitutes for fact. Language is loaded. Euphemisms
reign. A man "admits" that he is gay. A pregnant woman
"peddles" her story to the press. Richard Jewell "bounces"
from job to job. "Inner city" replaces black or Hispanic.
"Conservative," "suburban," or "blue collar"
replace white.
Studies show that
images can easily overpower words in broadcast and in print, and
they can deliver a message that may or may not be what the journalist
intends. Images shape impressions, and their effects, positive and
negative, are long-lasting.
When they
work: They portray a diversity of people and offer a range of
perspectives. They take the public where they might not ordinarily
go. They're the work of informed photojournalists whose continuing
education provides both sensitivity and confidence. They produce
a body of work that is balanced and fair.
When they
don't work: They help form or reinforce stereotypes by portraying
people disproportionately in a negative or stereotypical light.
They hurt people unnecessarily. They provide the public with a false
sense of the world in which they live.
The most abiding
and most immediate values transmitted from journalists to their public
arrive via the "play" a story gets. Top of the A-block.
Banner headline. Large letters. Urgent pitch. Journalists tell people
who and what is most important. Which stories must be told now. Which
can be relegated to the news briefs and the back pages.
When it works:
All people are valued equally. Breast cancer stories get the same
play as prostate cancer stories. Success and tragedy stories about
people of color receive the same prominent play as those about white
people.
When it doesn't
work: Journalists perpetuate a false hierarchy where men's issues
are more important than those of women. Where white lives are worth
more than others. Where the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians
is considered more newsworthy than that of heterosexuals.
1.
Keith Woods, The Poynter Institute.
|
